Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SCD222669, Michael T. Smyth, Judge.
AARON, J.
This appeal arises out of Tyrone Lamonte Davis's plea of guilty to a charge of stalking and proceeds in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2009, Davis harassed and threatened Mary J. and, within days, was arrested and charged with one count each of stalking and making a criminal threat. He promptly agreed to plead guilty to the stalking count and to admit related allegations that he had suffered a strike prior. As part of the plea agreement, the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the criminal threat charge and the complaint's prison prior enhancement allegations and to refrain from filing any additional charges relating to a second victim, Joy D.; Davis agreed to be subject to a domestic violence protective order in Joy D.'s favor and waived his right to appeal the stipulated 32-month sentence, consisting of the low term, doubled in accordance with the Three Strikes Law.
At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed the stipulated sentence and issued a protective order for both Joy D. and Mary J. Davis filed a notice of appeal. He also requested a certificate of probable cause to challenge his plea, but did not specify any basis therefore, and the superior court denied the request.
Davis's appellate counsel has filed a brief indicating that she has been unable to identify any argument for reversal and asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), the brief identifies the following two issues as possible, but not arguable, on appeal: 1) whether Davis's guilty plea was constitutionally valid; and 2) whether Davis's waiver of his appellate rights was valid. This court invited Davis to file a brief on his own behalf, but he did not respond.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record in accordance with Wende and Anders and not found any reasonably arguable appellate issues. Competent counsel has represented Davis on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: NARES, Acting P. J., O'ROURKE, J.